Amazing what happens while your internet connection gets wiped out, isn't it. Today's breaking news is that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts originally voted to strike down the mandate in Obamacare, but then changed his mind and sided with the liberal members of the court. Or so CBS reports.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy --- believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law --- led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless" one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

It’s a four page article with a lot to go through, but if you haven’t read it already, it’s probably worth your time. At least… maybe. This story may be true in its entirety, or at least in part, but there are a couple of things which have me holding back on it. First, it relies entirely on two “unnamed sources” which always throws up a red flag. And when it’s something this juicy regarding proceedings which are normally held closer to the vest than anything else in the nation, I have to wonder.

Second – as you’ll find out after you read through all the tawdry details – this is a dream story for CBS or anyone looking to derail conservatives. It’s got all the elements of a Victorian bodice-ripper: alliances, denials, betrayal, and most importantly it features prominent national conservative figures fighting with each other. The breathless entry about the rest of the “conservative justices” telling Roberts “you’re on your own” is the stuff of liberal journalistic legend.

When something looks too good to be true, it’s generally worth checking out further. But if it is, the conclusion the authors draw is stunning. The clear implication is that Roberts initially wanted to do away with the mandate but was reading the tea leaves of public opinion and abandoned his initial, principled stand under outside influence and out of a desire to maintain his reputation and that of the court. That’s a pretty serious charge.

This story (and others which also report this and expand upon it) could very well be bogus...however...it does seem very consistent with the bizarre rationale of Roberts’ opinion, and the fact that the dissent does not appear to acknowledge his opinion.

If it is true that Roberts bowed to media and political pressure, he should resign. That undermines to entire point of what a judge is supposed to be and he is not fit to serve in the judiciary.

I guess as upset as we are...our focus can’t be on Roberts as much (right now) as those who enacted the law to begin with in order to get before him for this crazy ruling. This outrageous law never should have existed to get before the Supreme Court in the first place.

There is a tremendous amount of discussion about CJ Roberts and his vote on ZeroCare. I can see the arguments on both sides that he 1)betrayed conservatives and that he 2)handed zero and the Dems a Pyrrhic victory.

On the one hand, CJ Robert went out of his way to misinterpret the way that the bill was written to justify everything under the auspices of the Commerce Clause and make it a tax. By doing so, in the circular decision he made, he appears to have expanded Congress’ authority to tax and make us do whatever they want by adding a tax for not doing it.

On the other hand, if he sided with the liberals in order to hand zero a Pyrrhic victory (as some believe), it raises additional questions about his decision. If he PARTICULARLY sided with the liberal justices SOLELY to hand zero a Pyrrhic victory, it strongly suggests that he introduced politics into his ruling, and that is a major concern.

From the outset, the Supreme Court was established to be the arbiter between laws created by the Congress and their applicability to the Constitution, absent any other influence. If Roberts engaged in political manipulation in order to create the situation we now have, it signals an specially dangerous precedent and Roberts should step down.

Currently, this story is still a moving target with lots of rumor and innuendo and we all need to be patient and wait for the other shoe to drop before we formulate any opinions. Although I remain in a bit of shock and very confused, I’m waiting for the facts that make the most sense to be released before I decide if Roberts is a genius or a Judas. Right now, I don’t think we know.

If that was the case he should have never accepted a seat on the the supreme court. That being said, I have a new found respect for Justice Kennedy who is obviously more courageous by a 1000 fold than roberts(whose name does not deserve to be capitalized).

This article, though it has a strong leftist bias, confirms what I had surmised. Roberts initially proposed to declare the law unconstitutional and then changed his mind late in the process.

Where the article is dishonest is that it states Roberts changed his view because of the legal and intellectual arguments in favor of the law. Robert is very intelligent. That is beyond dispute. It is literally impossible that he believes the convoluted and almost nonsensical arguments in favor of the law.

The article uses dishonest phrases very skillfully. The article states “Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure”. This is clearly dishonest. “Some” just means more than one. “Informed observers outside the court” just means unnamed individuals who could be anybody. “Flatly reject” just means can't prove or don't know.

Roberts was pressured or blackmailed or made his decision for some unknown reason. His decision had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. It had nothing to do with the constitution or legal reasoning.

What scares me about Roberts is how Obama and the MSM went after him so hard after the Citizens United case. Obama attacked the Supreme Court during the State of the Union speech. This is unprecedented. They would not have done that if they didn't know Roberts was weak and could be threatened and pressured effectively.

The Obama Administration are Chicago thugs. They have no integrity and use “the Chicago Way” i.e. brute force, extortion, violence, lies etc to get their way. In Justice Robert they found someone they could threaten effectively.

When something looks too good to be true, its generally worth checking out further. But if it is, the conclusion the authors draw is stunning. The clear implication is that Roberts initially wanted to do away with the mandate but was reading the tea leaves of public opinion and abandoned his initial, principled stand under outside influence and out of a desire to maintain his reputation and that of the court. Thats a pretty serious charge.

Sorry - but this explanation doesn't wash with me. Public opinion has been consistently AGAINST ObamaCare and FOR repeal of it, so why would Roberts fear public opinion?

Also, Roberts' logic is so flawed and so uncharacteristic of his other rulings, it's almost as if he's trying to send a discreet message - like a hostage on the phone trying to give a hint of his whereabouts.

Call me a tin-foiler, but I'm going with the "offer he couldn't refuse" explanation. I certainly wouldn't put it past the thug occupant of the WH.

This story has the ring of substantial truth about it. But please observe, the story in all its four pages offers us not much more than two facts: 1) Roberts flipped from the conservative analysis to the dark side; 2) the debate among the five "conservative" Justices was vigorous.

All of conjecture in the article about why Roberts flipped is attributed to sources outside the court and/or an analysis of the opinions themselves. On the whole they do not offer any significant insight nor did they purport to do so.

It is still entirely possible that Roberts was honestly convinced that the extractions exacted for violation of the mandate were indeed a tax and not a penalty. But one need only read the dissent to understand how weak Roberts' arguments in support of his theory were, a theory which he figuratively helicoptered into this case blindsiding everyone. It is possible to believe that Roberts was honestly convinced of his helicopter there, but it requires a conscious operation of faith and a suspension of all disbelief to accept it.

Assuming arguendo that Roberts honestly came to his position, there is no story here except, perhaps, that Roberts is not firmly grounded intellectually after all.

Assuming the most likely, that Roberts consciously distorted the law and seized upon the tax argument as a means of facilitating his flip, we are left with a grave miscarriage of duty.

The article moves is a little closer to understanding the whole story but does not get us home.

It does however, or at least it certainly should, put to rest these mindless stories that Roberts is a Machiavellian genius who has hamstrung Obama in the upcoming election and hobbled the liberals forever by shutting down their exploitation of the commerce clause.

This is a picture of a flip flopper, perhaps possessed of a white heart and an empty head but, in any case, not a chessplayer.

Forgot to add - I trust a story from CBS about as far as I can throw the author of it. Unnamed sources??? Could be some plant from the White House. What a perfect two-fer. Get your signature legislation approved and get conservatives hating on your nemesis SC justice.

As usual, the libs are feeding us crap and we're gobbling it up and smacking our lips.

Roberts did the wrong thing by the Constitution. I don't care why he did it. I don't care how he did it. I don't care when he decided to do it or who nudged or pushed or threatened him. He did a monumental wrong thing, and he's earned his place in history as a betrayer of our nation.

How many eighteen-year-old U.S. Marines turn the Constitution into toilet paper? How many sailors in their early twenties spy for communists? How many Army and Air Force recruits or senior officers betray their duty? Very, very few, and what's more, a great many sacrifice their very lives to do their duty, and many more give up eyes and arms and legs and spines to do their sworn duty by defending America.

Please don't try to tell me Roberts is some sort of "tragic" figure. He's a grown man who not only failed to do his sworn duty, but betrayed America.

He chose to vote with Kagan, et al, instead of with Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy. His vote has strengthened the possibility that Obama's Unconstitutional Deathcare Bill will become the permanent law of the land. He's compromised, for whatever reason (blackmail, personal vanity, or closet support of the leftist agenda).

JMO, but I don’t think CJ Roberts ever had any intention of throwing out the whole bill.

I think he was initially in favor of removing the mandate and leaving the rest of the law intact. When the conservatives rejected his argument, he jumped sides and used tangled reasoning to get around his main objection, overreach of the Commerce Clause.

Sunday on Face the Nation, Jan Crawford of CBS News said that two reliable sources told her that Roberts originally voted, in late March, with the four conservative justices to invalidate the individual mandate. According to Crawford, Roberts suddenly changed sides some six weeks later and then resisted a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold.

Ive learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administrations argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.

Roberts did the wrong thing by the Constitution. I don't care why he did it. I don't care how he did it. I don't care when he decided to do it or who nudged or pushed or threatened him. He did a monumental wrong thing, and he's earned his place in history as a betrayer of our nation.

Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy --- believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law --- led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

Maybe. It's also possible that Kennedy agreed with Roberts and they decided to let Roberts take the heat for the decision. I don't have any evidence for that, but this part of the story looks a little fishy to me.

Kennedy has sided with the conservatives far more often than he is given credit for. On the other hand, Roberts has quite plainly indicated he has no intention of finding and bill passed by the Federal government unconstitutional in its entirety.

Way back in April, I predicted to my brother in law that Kennedy would not be the problem and that if there was any concern it was what Roberts would do.

39
posted on 07/02/2012 5:14:24 PM PDT
by CharacterCounts
(A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)

Like I said, I don't have any evidence or any real knowledge of the personalities involved in this specific case, just a gut feeling.

When things get leaked to the press, I tend not to believe the story that somebody got angry or indignant and suspect that somebody is trying to advance an agenda, to create a spin, or to deceive the public.

That just seems truer to my experience of leaking. It's more the cold-blooded and devious who leak than the righteously angry people who have actually been offended. In my experience, the latter tend to stew in their own juices.

No, there are some other stories out suggesting that Kennedy is royally ticked off at Roberts, and that hes talking about it on background to some media acquaintances of his.

To my mind, it seems obvious that Justice Kennedy is one of the sources for this story. Go back and read Crawford's original print report. Who comes off looking best in her account? That Kennedy is something of an egomaniac is consistent with his being involved with the story being "leaked" the way it has.

Also, as best I can recall, the Crawford story contains no representation to the effect that she attempted to contact the Chief Justice's office for comment (I know that Roberts left for Malta shortly after the end of the term, but he has an administrative staff, of course.) That the story makes no such representation indicates that no attempt was made. This, in turn, suggests to me that Crawford (and her editor(s)) have what they consider to be rock solid "sources" -- i.e., another Justice.

Yeah, and also, her “sources” are telling her explicit details about what was going on in the justices’ conference room and also in their offices behind closed doors while they were arguing with Roberts. The only people with such insider knowledge are the justices themselves.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.